Monday, November 30, 2015

Per 11/28/15 National Archives and Records Administration FOIA Release. I have re-listened to the 02/23/04 9/11 Commission interview with Lt. Col. Randy Morris several times. I respectfully urge everyone still concerned with learning the full details, the full truth about the September 11, 2001 mass killings to put yourself in that interview room with the commission and military personnel and hear for yourself in their own words from the people who were never interviewed publicly on CSPAN television or any other network.

Former commissioner Miles Kara surmised in an email exchange between he and I last year that the NJ Air National Guard (177th FW) would have reached NY at (9:00AM EST) and unarmed, therefore what good would they have been/"what were they supposed to do" [sic].

For those unaware, Kara has also acknowledged that the very same NJ-ANG "played" in the Vigilant Guardian mock hijack exercise on Friday September 7, 2001 wherein the NJ 177 Fighter Wing responded to and successfully intercepted a hijacking. After listening to the aforementioned February 2004 interview with Randy Morris (CONR) I've always wondering why the hell it took General Arnold so long to pass authority to "generate additional aircraft" to respond...especially in light of the fact that the 177th was good enough to practice intercepting a mock hijack four days before 9/11. Why weren't they "generated" for the real thing four days later when they clearly were the closest to do so and had demonstrated proficiency in doing so during practice?

Unfortunately, for everyone who cares the commission failed to broach the subject with General Arnold or anyone else in the military.

Incontrovertible - New 9/11 documentary by Tony RookeA film for Coppers & Fire Fighters by Coppers & Fire Fighters.Buy the standard definition DVD or Blu-ray version of the film fromhttp://www.incontrovertible911evidenc...

REVIEWS:---------------

"Simply put, this is not just the best film I've seen on 911, it's the best film I have seen all year." - Sergeant John Meaders, 32 year ex Californian police officer

Saturday, November 21, 2015

The Jim Marrs interview at the bottom of this page is overflowing with evidence of a JFK conspiracy that doesn't require debating a magic bullet, which is almost all the mainstream ever wants to do on this topic.

These evidentiary points include a very compelling case that Oswald did not kill police officer J. D. Tippit, but rather was dropped off at the theater by him where 3 witnesses place Oswald at the time Tippit was killed. Killed by someone else besides Oswald (who was busy buying popcorn) as also indicated by the Tippet murder scene, which didn't indicate someone fleeing from shooting the President, but rather someone sticking around to make sure that officer Tippit was dead by shooting him in the head after already having killed him before he hit the ground with a shot to the heart.

Allegations of involvement in the assassination of John F. Kennedy

In September 1980, Harrelson surrendered to police after a six-hour standoff in which he was reportedly "high on cocaine".[19][20] During the standoff, he threatened suicide and stated that he had killed Judge Wood and President John F. Kennedy.[19][21]
In a television interview after his arrest, Harrelson said: "At the
same time I said I had killed the judge, I said I had killed Kennedy,
which might give you an idea to the state of my mind at the time." He
said that the statements made during the standoff were "an effort to
elongate my life."[22]

Joseph Chagra later testified during Harrelson's trial that Harrelson
claimed to have shot Kennedy and drew maps to show where he was hiding
during the assassination.
Chagra said that he did not believe Harrelson's claim, and the AP
reported that the FBI "apparently discounted any involvement by
Harrelson in the Kennedy assassination."[23] According to Jim Marrs in 1989's Crossfire, Harrelson is believed to be the youngest and tallest of the "three tramps" by many assassination researchers.[20]
Marrs stated that Harrelson was involved "with criminals connected to
intelligence agencies and the military" and suggested that he was
connected to Jack Ruby through Russell Douglas Matthews, a third party with links to organized crime who was known to both Harrelson and Ruby.[21]

Would Hunt continue to tell lies on his deathbed? Perhaps.
Would Hunt tell a final tall story or two, to protect himself, or perhaps
deal one final slap in the face to the US government (which made him a
fall guy for Watergate)? Yes. Would Hunt hide the involvement of certain
individuals to whom he remained loyal, including people who are still alive?
Certainly. Anything from an operative like Hunt can only be accepted with
caution and healthy skepticism.

Nevertheless, Hunt's scenario has the ring of truth.

Each of the named names are well-known CIA and CIA-linked
players exposed by many researchers and historians who have detailed the
enduring connection from the Bay of Pigs and the Dallas hit to Watergate
and Iran-Contra.

The Hunt confession vindicates generations of historians,
researchers and whistleblowers who have given their lives and careers to
expose the truth about Dealey Plaza...

Meanwhile, the criminal deceptions of the US government
and its corporate media, the Warren Commission, and the dirty work of cover-up
specialists such as Gerald Posner and Mark Fuhrman, and the legions of
JFK assassination revisionist/theorists, deserve a final rebuke, and eternal
scorn.

Highlighting Hunt's role

Although the Rolling Stone piece does not address it,
the Hunt confession directly corroborates two classic investigations that
previously exposed the role of Hunt. They are Mark Lane's Plausible Denial
and Michael Canfield/A.J. Weberman's Coup D'Etat in America. Lane's book
details how he took Hunt to court, and won a libel suit, essentially proving
that the CIA murdered JFK, and that Hunt lied about his whereabouts. The
investigation of Canfield and Weberman identified Hunt and Frank Sturgis
as two of the three "tramps" arrested at Dealey Plaza.

Time has only made these investigations more relevant.
More than ever, their books, and those of the JFK historians and researchers
above listed, deserve to be found, read and studied.

Marrs disputes Hunt being one of the tramps, but again references photo evidence that he was there.

Evidence that Oswald had many doubles is presented in the most compelling manner I've ever heard, this includes an unclassified June 3rd, 1960 memo where former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover writes to the State Department, "Since there is
a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate, any
current information the Department of State may have concerning subject will
be appreciated." This is interesting for another reason as Marrs notes in the interview and has written, "What a bombshell. We were told that nobody within the government paid much
attention to Oswald, and yet here is a document showing that no less than J.
Edgar Hoover personally was aware of Lee Harvey Oswald three years before the
assassination, and that he had reason to suspect that someone was posing as
Oswald, indicating a possible intelligence connection."
The intelligence connection of an Oswald double culminates with this scenario, as outlined by a poster on the AboveTopSecret forum:

It's my understanding (from The Men Who Killed Kennedy) that when the
vault was unearthed and the coffin opened for DNA testing, the head was
no
longer attached to the body. Sometime after the original burial,
persons unknown dug up the vault and substituted the head of Harvey,
which was still
attached to the body at burial, with the head of Lee Harvey Oswald. When
the coffin was opened, the head of LHO was found loose (unattached)
along
with the headless body of Harvey. This is stated as fact by the funeral
director and his son who placed Harvey's body in the coffin and buried
his
"sealed" vault in 1963.

No mention was made of this observation by any authority. Anyone surprised???.

Of course when DNA samples were taken from the unattached head in the
coffin, the mastoid scar located, it proved that the loose head inside
the
coffin belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Therefore, the "real" Lee Harvey Oswald met his demise at some time
after Harvey was murdered in the basement of the Dallas Police
Department,
November 24, 1963, and before the unearthment of the vault some 30 years
later.

So when Harvey said he was "just a patsy", he was telling the truth.

Actual audio of the funeral director talking about the circumstances is played during the interview, as is that of a man from a military air transport who picked up a man in Dallas he swore was Oswald after Kennedy's shooting on the day of the assassination. Also spoke of is a witneses who swore he saw Oswald being arrested behind the theatre until Marrs showed him the official footage of Oswald being ushered out the front, promoting the witness to ask, "Then who did I see?"

Marrs is asked about Oswald's widow confirming that the backyard photos of Oswald were taken by her, but he contends that they are a hoax and that she admitted to taking some photos, but not those particular ones. I think the interviewer is speaking of Jesse Ventura saying that after speaking to her for 2 and a half hours he "did get this totally verified... she took the famous photograph of Oswald holding the gun and the communist paper. She looked me right and the eye, she said 'Yes, I took that photograph. It's not doctored. It's not anything." I said why, she said 'I don't know why. Lee wanted it done." Ventura continues, "I got the impression that Lee was under instruction to get those photos taken and I believe it was all part of creating the set up. You know to create these photos of him with the gun." Marrs should consider the idea that these photos are fake is disinformation intended to muddy the waters. The case made by Ventura is compelling and just as damning.

One site promoting the idea that the pictures are fakes notes that, "The chin of the 'Oswald' in the photos seems more broader and squarish
than the Oswald who was arrested in Dallas and who had a narrow, cleft
chin." Getting back to the Oswald doubles idea, the difference noted about his chin could literally be because it was a different Oswald! Marrs notes family members stating Oswald had a thinner neck and different skin tone after not seeing him for awhile. Granted, these were more formative years when changes would be easier to pass off, but from what Marrs describes there were at least two and maybe six Oswalds, two of which looked very similar. Here are four examples:

Lee Harvey Oswald

Lee Harvey Oswald

photographed by
his brother, Robert Oswald, in Texas in
1958 and printed between pages 96-97 in Robert's book LEE, A Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald.

when
he appeared at the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City in Sept. 1963. The
Cuban Government provided this photo to the HSCA.

Lee Harvey Oswald

Lee Harvey Oswald

when
he visited the Russian Embassy in Mexico City in
Sept. 1963. The CIA provided this photo of "Lee Harvey Oswald" to
the FBI on 11/23/63.

in Dallas
Police custody two days after the
assassination of JFK and officer Tippit. The
accused assassin was shot dead by Jack Ruby, who formerly supplied guns
to Cuba.

You have one hell of an argument without debating a magic bullet when you combine this material with the other facts Marrs speaks in the interview especially those concerning the doctoring up of the Zapruder film and autopsy records to cover-up the exit wound in the back of Kennedy's head thus covering up the kill shot from the front. The latter is the subject of this little book as detailed in the related link below the interview.

That author cannot be dismissed as just as just another JFK conspiracy theorist you may notice.

An interview with Jim Marrs performed by "Dark Journalist." The interview is somewhat edited and shortened.

For people opposed to the endless wars President Hollande has just given the game away. The response to the Paris attacks will be pitiless, he says. Not a thorough investigation, no hint of reflection or analysis, no review of French foreign policy, just a pitiless response...

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

I read with some interest your “study” of some message board postings concerning the September 11th attacks. I found your efforts less than compelling. Random samplings of arguments on message boards are a legitimate way to understand the September 11th 2001 attacks? No. But it is a convenient way of lumping large disparate groups of people into simplistic categories in order to smear them.

As someone who has intensely studied the issue for some 13 years and counting, I would have to say that your approach is hamfisted, ignorant, and even juvenile. You and your partners have relied upon your own concepts of “belief” and “theory” and the utterances of message board posters, but lack a firm foundation to compare or contrast any of the information that was analyzed.

In other words, you don’t have an expert knowledge of the US government cover-up of the September 11th event (or even acknowledge it), nor of the many high-level government whistleblowers surrounding this issue. You lack an even rudimentary understanding of the event, and therefore have no basis to judge the competing arguments, at all. Nor do you concede the obvious fact of conspiracies throughout history, actual state crimes, of which there are numerous examples. This would lead to an examination of motive, and that the state gains an incredible amount of power after failing to stop an attack, including the power to wage foreign wars of aggression with impunity.

You know: 1 + 1=2 type stuff.

It is not difficult to engage in a conspiracy. Any two individuals on planet earth can commit a crime together, andvoila: there’s a conspiracy. The idea that conspiracy is rare or even non-existent(!), as some mainstream media pundits have argued, is absurd on its face and should discredit the author entirely. As an obvious example, you–as someone purportedly studying government conspiracy–should be well versed in the Iran-Contra fiasco of the 1980s. Colonel Oliver North was convicted, with ten others, to refresh your memory. So, is someone who “believes” in the Iran-Contra conspiracy more or less prone to “belief” in conspiracy, as per your definitions and comprehension?

Clearly we have a problem when you divide the public based upon generalizations that cannot possibly hold true when tested against real historical facts. The knowledge, or ignorance, of these facts is paramount.

So, Mr. Wood, did the Iran-Contra conspiracy happen? Are you a “conspiracist?” Do you engage in “belief” about it?

Next, your “psychological study” has not even a mention of the concept of disinformation. This omission discredits your work. Disinformation is the deliberate seeding of the public debate with false data in order to muddy the waters and make discovery of the true facts of the conspiracy more difficult. It throws off the dogs. Disinformation is rampant and easily achieved as soon as any individual concocts a false narrative and presses “send” or “post.” Apparently this has never occurred to your team, as it received zero scrutiny.

Some number of message board trolls will turn out to be posting disinformation, in my decade-plus experience with them, a situation your study failed to even conceptualize, nevermind correct for. Others post misinformation. This is the problem with relying upon message board flame wars for your data.

Therefore your study is tangential and irrelevant to learning what actually happened. Its approach reinforces the idea that psychological pseudoscience has relevance to the facts of real world crimes and terrorist events. It champions a specious view, one founded upon ignorance and random arguments over misinformation and disinformation, rather than seeking to understand what is actually known and what is unknown, to date, about the criminal attacks you purport to study.

Similarly your “study” commented on other controversial topics without any accompanying examination of something the rest of the world likes to call “evidence.” You and your cohorts feel supremely confident in pronouncing sweeping generalizations about “belief” without providing context as to why someone would hold such a belief (factual evidence). It is for this exact reason that I have labeled your efforts “pseudoscience.” You have divorced some abstract concept called “belief” from the hard evidence that causes such “belief.” Cause and effect are alien to your own theories, at least as presented in your “psychological study.” Your article ends up lightweight pondering and lacks the gravity of facts, or the due diligence required to examine and test those facts.

You have come to this party from ignorance, and you remain there, blissfully unaware of the veracity of any of the data, whatsoever. That’s a pretty harsh criticism, but is warranted.